| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
laplace 
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 06 2005
Location: popupControl();
Status: Offline
Points: 7606
|
 Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:15 |
|
Musicians have plenty of time to write their first batch of songs so a debut CD packed full is interesting to me. Any follow-up that attempts to span an hour and a quarter is a lost cause and very avoidable - bands are often lying to themselves at this point, or else hoping that people will be satisfied with their winnowed-out cuts from the first album.
(yes, I know _your_ favourite modern prog band has a prodigious output but I don't like them one bit.) ;)
on the other hand I love to make compilations, and this is where long CDs packed with filler shine - all the chaff and packaging has to be protecting something of value, no matter how small.
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:24 |
I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.
|
|
What?
|
|
Bob Greece
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 1823
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 04:27 |
I agree. About 40 minutes is right for an album - I grew up listening to LPs.
Mind you - in these days of MP3s, I expect that fewer people are listening to albums from beginning to end any more.
|
|
|
|
MoreBarlow
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 12
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:22 |
|
Depending on the album, I may be able to tolerate a little extra length... but something also found in vinyl albums, naturally, is 2 sides per album-- maybe partially what's so unlikeable is that there's no "break", or naturally ending/beginning whatever have you, between the 2 parts of a really long album.
|
|
Norbert
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 20 2005
Location: Hungary
Status: Offline
Points: 2506
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:22 |
Not tired of that 77 minute album? 
Actually it really depends on the album, and nobody is obliged to listen to each album in one sitting. I hardly ever listen to both discs of The Lamb, once the first and after some break the second.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 09:26 |
 The T wrote:
Yes. I am. 
|
You should try Steve Roach's Darkest Before Dawn or Philip Glass's Music With Changing Parts. Those would really drive you up the wall.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
el böthy
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 27 2005
Location: Argentina
Status: Offline
Points: 6336
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 10:57 |
|
I have come to the conclusion that the only +70 minutes albums that work are the ones that are, sort to speak, experiences more than just music. For example: Lateralus. Lateralus is one of the longest albums (itīs almost 80 minutes), but the music in itīs whole creates this sort of atmosphere that works great from start to finish. Other example is Sleepytime Gorilla Museumīs Of natural history. Although 71 minutes long, itīs still a lot. But, again, itīs not just music, itīs almost a da da theater play, and it works! But, this are the exceptions! Albums like the ones form Dream Theater are just too long. And, lets face it, there is always a bad, or two, songs in their album, they would work much, much better without them!
|
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2007
Location: Michigan, U.S.
Status: Online
Points: 66542
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 11:15 |
Personally, I am in the "more music for my buck" the better faction. In most instances what is released is either pretty high quality or at the very least serves a purpose. A song might suck but they were trying to experiment with a new sound. Or more likely, if we don't include at least one song written and sung by the bass player or drummer they will be unhappy and make our lives miserable so here it is.
I think that there are numerous instances in the vinyl era where a band released their 40 minute albums, and then released the singles with previously unreleased tracks that didn't make it on to the album. A long list of critics would line up to suggest that the unreleased track should have been included and track 1, 2, 3, or 4 should have been omitted. But when you ask the artist why this wasn't done they will tell you that tracks 1, 2, 3, or 4 were more in line with the sound or the atmosphere they were going for. With an 80 minute album it is more likely that the previously unreleased song will be included. Obviously, not all the time, because there are still instances where bands go in to the studio with more than 80 minutes or even 160 minutes worth of material, so there is still music that gets omitted and saved for future albums or to appear as that 1 previously unreleased track on a greatest hits or box set package that makes it necessary for a completionist to purchase that compilation package.
Edited by rushfan4 - November 23 2007 at 11:16
|
|
|
|
darkmatter
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 23 2006
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 2760
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 12:00 |
darqdean wrote:
I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.
|
Agreed, I personally don't like seeing people using the word filler because it would be, as you said, loading an album with pointless tracks. This doesn't make any sense to me because the artist obviously had some reason to put that track on an album (that reason NOT being to take up space, which is stupid). If a track is meant to be on an album, it certainly can't be "filler" (meaning its only purpose is to take up space), can it?
|
|
limeyrob
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: January 15 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1402
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 12:26 |
I was discussing this issue with a friend and we wondered if there was any correlation between length's of albums and the intervals between releases. We weren't overly concerned but the sense of anticipation seems less these days as you have to wait longer between releases for the longer albums. Mind you if they are as superb as Human Equation I can stand the wait.
|
|
Sckxyss
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 05 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1319
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 17:54 |
Bob Greece wrote:
I agree. About 40 minutes is right for an album - I grew up listening to LPs.
Mind you - in these days of MP3s, I expect that fewer people are listening to albums from beginning to end any more. |
In mainstream music, this is true, but we proggers know better! 
|
|
oddentity
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 248
|
Posted: November 23 2007 at 23:29 |
darkmatter wrote:
darqdean wrote:
I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.
|
Agreed, I personally don't like seeing people using the word filler because it would be, as you said, loading an album with pointless tracks. This doesn't make any sense to me because the artist obviously had some reason to put that track on an album (that reason NOT being to take up space, which is stupid). If a track is meant to be on an album, it certainly can't be "filler" (meaning its only purpose is to take up space), can it?
|
I hate the word "filler". It is used far too often these days. Usually, when a reviewer uses the word "filler" to describe a track, they are simply revealing their own close-mindedness and limited musical horizons. For example, reviewers often describe an ambient interlude or a jazz/rock tune as "filler", whereas if they expanded their musical horizons they might be able to see the value in such tracks and enjoy them for what they have to offer.
Edited by oddentity - November 23 2007 at 23:30
|
|
Nightfly
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: August 01 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 3659
|
Posted: November 24 2007 at 11:08 |
I don't mind 79 minute albums providing all the material is worthy of inclusion.
My only problem being that at any one sitting I get to listen to less albums than I did before. Okay so I don't have to listen to a whole album at once but particularly in the Prog genre so many albums are the type that you want to sit back and listen from start to finish.
|
|
Spydrfish
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 05 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 14:18 |
Trickster F. wrote:
I've found this true in most cases. The longer the album is the more chances the artist has to fail to impress me. |
Though in some cases that could be the opposite I like a good 50-65 minute album length, I usually consider that not too long, but not though that depends on how many tracks/notable tracks there are., If there are too many 1-2 minute filler tracks, that would make a 50
minute album seem much shorter (Selling england by the pound) Fear of a Blank planet was 50 minutes, but seemed to short cause the last two tracks failed to be notable (To me). Also longer albums such as Spock's beard's title album (77 minutes) and Marillion's Brave (71 minutes) are practically flawless and don't seem to drag on (To me). So it really depends on, like I said, I like some albums that are short but sweet, but they often leave me wanting more such as Rush albums, but sometimes an album can be full of good music but too long to really listen to much (Flower kings).
Edited by Spydrfish - November 25 2007 at 14:21
|
|
This Space For Rent
|
|
Jace
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 23 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 14:56 |
Hi,
I am looking to find bands that have made songs that are longer than forty minutes or even up to 75 minutes. Do you know of any bands beside Flower Kings who do that?
Thanks,
Jace
|
|
Jace
|
|
Spydrfish
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 05 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 15:00 |
Jace wrote:
Hi,
I am looking to find bands that have made songs that are longer than forty minutes or even up to 75 minutes. Do you know of any bands beside Flower Kings who do that?
Thanks,
Jace |
Porcupine tree, Moonloop (unedited) 40 minutes Edge of sanity Crimson 1 & 2, 40 and 43 minutes Echolyn mei 49 min Green carnation light of day...day of darkness 60 min Fantomas, Delirium cordia 74 min
Edited by Spydrfish - November 25 2007 at 15:03
|
|
This Space For Rent
|
|
Prog-jester
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 05 2005
Location: Love Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 5908
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 15:50 |
Good example of thread's subject (IMHO surely) - MAGIC PIE's latest album. I'd give it 4 stars if it would have been shorter 
|
|
Spydrfish
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 05 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 35
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 16:14 |
darqdean wrote:
I'm amazed to think that so many people believe that bands sit down and write filler, or deliberately load-up an album with worthless, throw away, second-rate songs just to make it longer. That's such a bizzare attitude, sure, Top-40 one-hit wonders produced by Simon Cowell would probably do that since most of their sales are singles-based and albums are of secondary importance, but no one in the album-based Prog world would do that, it doesn't make sense.
|
Filler tracks seemed to be more of a problem with older prog bands, Yes's fragile had 4, Emerson lake and palmer had quite a few wich actually became hits... Though short songs don't always mean filler. With the old albums that originally had epics on one side of the record and such, Some tracks on the other side of the record seemed to be written half heartedly.
|
|
This Space For Rent
|
|
heavyhery
Forum Groupie
Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 71
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 17:53 |
|
me too.theyre so long that you can only hear them one or two times in your lifetime
|
|
heavyhery
|
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 16 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 7003
|
Posted: November 25 2007 at 18:20 |
In general I agree that a lot albums (in all genres) are just too long these days; back in the days of vinyl musicians had to be a bit more disciplined and focused.
On the other hand, some minimalist electronica positively thrives on CD; no background noise so it can be very quiet, and almost 80 uninterrupted minutes to play with. Steve Roach has released a few single track 70+ minutes epics like Immersion 1 and 2, Dream Circle and Darkest Before Dawn, and of course Klaus Schulze has always included generous quantities of music on his CDs and they're all the better for it.
Horses for courses I suppose.
|
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute
to the already rich among us...'
Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
I'm tired of (most) 79 minute albums!
